The tenant who returns the premises in poor condition is liable to pay more than the simple restoration, ruled the Court of Cassation.
An owner who had had to re-let by granting the new tenant advantageous conditions to compensate for the poor condition of the premises and the cost of their restoration thus justified a second damage, according to the Court in a judgment of March 8.
The compensation due by the former tenant for the restoration of the premises that he did not maintain or that he damaged, by not respecting his obligations, does not repair the loss of earnings of the owner who re-let under unfavorable conditions, at least for a few months, the magistrates said. Any reparation of damage must be done without loss or profit, they reminded.
Special clause of the lease
As for the repair of the premises, on the other hand, they judged that the previous deterioration should be deducted from the sums owed by the former tenant. If the premises were leased to it in used condition, its maintenance obligation did not require it to refurbish them, unless a special clause in the lease provided for this.
Without this clause, the tenant does not owe the repairs resulting from obsolescence and it is the judge who sovereignly appreciates the proportion due to obsolescence when this tenant returns degraded premises, added the Court of Cassation.
Real estate credit: find out the lowest rates for your project
This decision was pronounced in a dispute between merchants, who were only required to apply the general rules of the Civil Code in terms of rental. But for the rental of residential premises, further subject to the rules of the 1989 law, this law also provides that the tenant is obliged, except in special cases related to force majeure or the fault of another, to respond to damage and losses that arise during the term of the contract (…).
Rent or buy your main residence?
Reproduction forbidden.